Wickford Development Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 5 October 2020
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Wickford Development appealed VAT assessments disallowing input tax on bespoke fitted window blinds supplied and installed in new homes. The Tribunal found the blinds were incorporated into the buildings, were "goods of a description ordinarily incorporated by builders in a building of that description" within Note 22, did not fall within the Note 22 exclusions, and set the assessments aside allowing recovery of the input tax. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's witnesses and evidence and rejected HMRC's guidance on the point.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal treated the Note 22 inquiry as requiring identification of a suitable genus (here, window dressings) and a factual inquiry whether goods of that description were "ordinarily incorporated by builders" at the relevant time; incorporation can include fittings installed as a unit with a material degree of attachment short of becoming fixtures. If those facts are proved on the balance of probabilities, the goods qualify as building materials for zero-rating unless they fall within Note 22(a)–(d).
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal stated that HMRC's Customs Brief 02/11 (to the effect that roller blinds are not building materials) is incorrect, and commented on the proper reading of the plural "by builders" in Note 22 as a contextual/ordinariness question rather than a strict linguistic requirement that multiple builders must be shown.